The Supreme Court endorses the personal right to own guns.

That's why I don't want to live in America. I very easy can imagine usual stituation - me freaking around new unknown area finding shortcut thru your terrain and sudently I hear your voice: "Rise your hands that I could see them and if you will move I'll shoot your head" instead of usual greetings I use to hear: "Szczęśc Boże panocku. A czego dobra dusza tu szuka?" - (this mean 'God blees you Sir. What your good soul is looking here') when I freaking around in turistic purpose or to find mushrooms or when going to friend living in forest.

Please treat this as a joke. I understand culture differences and also dangerous area that you are living in. Many of my friends is living in the deep forest on Warmia. On our villages there is no need for keeping a gun because there is no crime or the chance is so low that it can be assumed to 0. Accidents can happend only in cities, suburbs and inside the famillies.
Friends and my familly do everything as you do but with one exception: they do not hunt for animals. But people do hunt on our terrains and we don't like it.

 

Depends on what areas in what part of the city, NYC or London.

The English chap that commented knows that England is changing and that immigrants are contributing. Of course, so are modern times as Rat notes. Listen to Rat he might be a pessimist, but he is a smart one.

 

Europe gave us Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and an assorted number of lesser tyrants who killed masses of people or caused masses of people to be killed. But they are cultured. Ha. Ha. Ha.

However, they do have democracy, a "directed democracy." It is a government of, by, and for bureaucrats. It is called the European Union. Er..a...something like that. But you get the point. The U.S. is coming along slowly to the same end.

 

The US used atomic bombs on Japan, and we now have Cheney/Bush, I think all societies can falter. In the US we operate as a republic.

 

Having reread the constitution, it looks that originally the right to bear arms was a concession to state rights as in the mention of militias. That said, now that the supreme court has ruled that it's personal right, does that actually undermine the right of states to control or allow the activity. Or by granting that it is now a personal right of citizens, does it open it up to more strict control under executive order, which this president has proven himself to be very competent in?

Which just reinforces my previous statement, spend your tax rebate on guns. Whoops just remembered you have to spend it on gas, bread and milk just to get by.

 

The Second Amendment is part of the 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights. These rights are granted to us by our creator. Our creator wasn't thinking about states or goverments when granting these rights, just individual people.

 

Yes. And by using the A-Bomb saved more lives than if the blockade had continued or an invasion had taken place. Moreover, the use taught the world never to use it again. So far, so good. But be careful of Iran.

You are another of those nuts about Bush and Cheney. These guys are all alike. They just have different names.

 

It was always a personal right. the bill of rights are "inalienable rights" that the authors of the constitution believed were granted to everyman(okay every free white protestant property owning male) by "their creator", militias have no rights only the individuals who would make up the militias. there was also no standing army at the time, who do you think was going to bring the guns if the militias were needed? um, the individuals would! This was also at a time when the british were using their authority over the colonies to keep individuals from owning firearms so that the british wouldn't have to fear a rebellion, also...

you know what, google it. there are about 200 years worth of anglo saxon common law that supports the position that the 2nd was an individual right that was extended to include militias. Everyman has a right to defend himself and his family (endowed by their creator thing again) hence evryman has a right to the means (tools) to defend himself, since it's been a while since the anglo-saxons used swords and crossbows, that meant that citizens had a right to the primary weapon of their time and ours: firearms. It wasn't until later that statists tries to convince the country that the 2nd was a collective right only, that the 2nd was was no longer needed in the present day (because tyrannical states no longer exist sarcasm of course) and that guns are the primary cause of gun violence/ gun crime and not violent culture or poverty. hence give us your means of self-defense and the state in the form of the military and the police will keep you safe at night. yeah right.

common fucking sense.

 

Doesn't it say in the constitution that the militia can bear arms? I just remember those two being in the same amendment. So, all the constitution says (If that is correct) is that you can bear arms legally if you join the national guard (Our modern militia). Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

You are wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

We have a collective right to organize ourselves into a militia (first part), We have an individual right to keep and bear arms (firearms/guns) (second part).

 

Not yet, it still needs to be incorporated using the 14 amendment. It's already started with groups suing the city of chicago.

 

How is it false? i would say that a handgun against a home invader or a rapist or a car jacker or a mugger or ect is more security than having the police on speed dial.

 

And i have yet to see a baby born with the ability to print newspapers or worship a deity, what is your point? That the right to self-defense isn't a real right because newborns are small and weak?

 

I'm trying to make sense of this statement...

You think that individual people (including non-aristocrats) owning firearms helps aristocrats become more powerful and controlling? how?

 

It's not a law. laws are created, it a right that is protected from the government by being included in the bill of rights. It was upheld by the supreme court because their job is to insure the government does not infringe on that right.

 

Astrolog- all i have to say is, i thought elitist urbanite socialist european was a stereotype. my bad, now i know better. You must live a very blessed life my friend, to look down on people you obviously do not want to understand outside of your own prejudices.

And for your information Americans became much more paranoid after we saw what the people of Europe and Asia went through.

Power is either divided or centralized, but never dissipated. I would trust a stranger with a gun more than i would trust a stranger who wants to take mine.

 

I fail to see how a homeowner's handgun in a home invader situation can grant anybody any guaranteed sense of security. Especially if that other person is determined or has an equivalent weapon.

There are other weapons that are not lethal out there and security measures that are used to deter home invaders, rapists, car jackers or muggers that do not result in a kill.

I mean, if we were all walking around with handguns, are we any more safe than if we weren't?

 

My point is that every person is born into our society with the right to life, the protection of that life, and a right to the security of the person.

Not the right to have a weapon bigger than yours. It's not a right that a person is born with.

The right to bear arms was a law that was created to give right to life philosophers a false sense of security in the modern world, and in the time of the founding fathers it helped keep the King of England out of local political affairs and affairs of trade & business.

Out of all the rights people deserve, the right to bear arms was #3 on the agenda for very au courant and present-day convictions.

It's surprising how few people critically examine the history of the 3rd Amendment and seem to be incapable to view the 'holier-than-thou' American Constitution censoriously.

 

All roads lead to Rome.

By letting the people below and common folk retain a few hand-out rights like the right to take up arms against the King of England while paying taxes, the aristocrats get fat and eat even better than if they didn't have militias backing them up. When talking about the time period of the Constitution and the 3rd Amendment, we're talking about a time where politicians were murdered while debating in the House and people were killed in duels fighting over the value of a slave or a cow or a card game. It was a time of great political uncertainty, grave social oppression, and extreme likelihoods of civil war.

The Romans used to pillage surrounding nation-states and claim victory over the people and property they conquered. The Romans allowed the conquered people to retain certain rights. They let the Etruscans, Corinthians, Celtics, Greeks, etc. rights to religion and to continue practicing certain attributes of their distinct culture - but they came around to collect taxes from all of them to send back to the Roman Empire and expand.

In exchange, the nation-states were coerced by militia forces to obey the Romans and follow their laws. The Romans would pit nations against each other. They would give arms and rights to build up local militias in order to go to war with other nations that were a threat or enemy to Rome.

It's a clever system of giving conquered people false rights to fight back in the interest and low cost of the State.

The right to bear arms is another way to keep the rich rich and comfortable. It promotes the idea that going to war is favourable and even necessary to the fundamental rights of man.

There is a connection between the right to bear arms and war. I'm surprised some people fail to make the connection.